Versions Compared

Old Version 37

changes.mady.by.user Jordan Li

Saved on

compared with

New Version 38

changes.mady.by.user Jordan Li

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Dataset wrap
titlecv.xpt
NameTU


Rowcaps


Row 1:Shows one or more lesions have been identified in the lower limb region at Visit 1.
Row 2:Shows lesion 1 is found in the left popliteal artery, below the knee.
Row 3:Shows lesion 2 is found in the right femoral artery.
Row 4:Shows one or more lesions have been identified in the lower limb region .at Visit 4
Row 5:Shows after treatmentstreatment, lesion 1 is unidentifiableis not detected, hence RESLOC is not populated, suggesting the treatments treatment had worked. 
Row 6:Shows lesion 2 is still present at the right femoral artery.
Row 7:Shows there are no more lesions identified in the lower limb region at Visit 8.
Row 8:Shows after treatments, lesion 1 is unidentifiable lesion 1 is not detected, hence RESLOC is not populated, suggesting the study treatment had worked. 
Row 9:Shows after treatments, lesion 2 is unidentifiable lesion 2 is not detected, hence RESLOC is not populated, suggesting the study treatment had worked. 



Dataset2
hi2styleaqua


Row

STUDYID

DOMAIN

USUBJID

TUSEQ

TULNKID

TUTEST

TULOC

TUORRES

TUSTRESCTU Result LOCTU Result LATTU Result LOCDTL

TUMETHOD

TUEVEL

VISITNUM

VISIT

TUDTC

1

TUDY01

TU409121
Lesion IndicatorLOWER LIMB REGIONYY


CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR2VISIT 12007-02-07
2

TUDY01

TU409122Lesion 1Examination for AbnormalityLOWER LIMB REGIONlesionlesionPOPLITEAL ARTERYLEFTBELOW THE KNEECT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR2VISIT 12007-02-07
3

TUDY01

TU409123Lesion 2Examination for AbnormalityLOWER LIMB REGIONlesionlesionFEMORAL ARTERYRIGHT
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR2VISIT 12007-02-07
4

TUDY01

TU409124
Lesion IndicatorLOWER LIMB REGIONYY


CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR5VISIT 42007-04-07
5

TUDY01

TU409125Lesion 1Examination for AbnormalityLOWER LIMB REGIONLesion UnidentifiableUndetectedLesion UnidentifiableUndetected


CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR5VISIT 42007-04-07
6

TUDY01

TU409126Lesion 2Examination for AbnormalityLOWER LIMB REGIONlesionlesionFEMORAL ARTERYRIGHT
CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR5VISIT 42007-04-07
7

TUDY01

TU409127
Lesion IndicatorLOWER LIMB REGIONNN


CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR9VISIT 82007-10-08
8

TUDY01

TU409128Lesion 1Examination for AbnormalityLOWER LIMB REGIONLesion UnidentifiableUndetectedLesion UnidentifiableUndetected


CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR9VISIT 82007-10-08
9

TUDY01

TU409129Lesion 2Examination for AbnormalityLOWER LIMB REGIONLesion UnidentifiableUndetectedLesion UnidentifiableUndetected


CT PERIPHERAL ANGIOGRAPHYINVESTIGATOR9VISIT 82007-10-08



...

Pros:
  1. Reusibility of the result location variables in other domains when needed.
  2. Simplicity: there is only one location for TULOC for the Lesion Location Identification process. Imaging location is treated as the general location for TULOC, and all result locations are under the RESLOC variable.
  3. We can The ability to represent the different types of lesions in TUORRES, i.e. aneurysm, calcified- annulus or -valvular leaflets, stenosis, or an actual cardiovascular lesion (plaque causing stenosis) in TUORRES, thusly avoiding the creation of , etc. This approach enables us to avoid creating "lesion-type" specific TUTESTs, such as aneurysm location identification, calcification location identification, etc.
  4. Because we are dealing with a "lesion (TU) domain", the TUTEST= Lesion Indicator, is created as a "general question" that would allow users to create a record on whether or not a lesion is present in a region. As mentioned in bullet point 3, a lesion can be an aneurysm, calcified annulus or valvular leaflets, stenosis and so on - so TUTEST = Lesion Indicator is all encompassing. This question TUTEST also allows users to create a negative record when the lesion is no longer identifiable detectable after treatments.
  5. This approach aligns the most with what happens in reality (the assessment of an image to find abnormalities). We all like this better (smile) yay win~
Cons:
  1. We currently have DIR, LAT, PORTOT, Loc Detail, how many more LOC-related variables might we need if there are more complicated locations info that we need to represent. For example, the graft use-case where we need to indicate that a location is being a graft, or transplant, we created a NSV for that.
Vote:

Status
colourGreen
titleYes

...